Merged: Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

What column 79 unequivocally didn't do, was cause simultaneous failure across 8 floors worth of other support columns resulting in free fall acceleration of that portion of the building. That required synchronized detonation, which even a casual observer can see occurring along the western edge of the north wall.

Can you explain something.

How come freefall acceleration did not start immediately upon this supposed simultaneous/synchronized/8 floor demolition? Chandler's graph shows a short period of non-freefall right before the actual freefall.

How come freefall acceleration did not start immediately upon this supposed simultaneous/synchronized/8 floor demolition? Chandler's graph shows a short period of non-freefall right before the actual freefall.

Well that's because although the entire structure was already moving, the bigbadpowersthatruleoverus required massive overkill. Sure the building was thoroughly doomed already but it had to be blowed up, blowed up real good.

That, or the building was in Wile E. Coyote mode and did not know it was hanging out over a void until it looked down.

How come freefall acceleration did not start immediately upon this supposed simultaneous/synchronized/8 floor demolition? Chandler's graph shows a short period of non-freefall right before the actual freefall.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Well that's because although the entire structure was already moving, the bigbadpowersthatruleoverus required massive overkill. Sure the building was thoroughly doomed already but it had to be blowed up, blowed up real good.

That, or the building was in Wile E. Coyote mode and did not know it was hanging out over a void until it looked down.

They turned WTC 7 over to Billy Sol Hurok and Big Jim McBob so it could be blowed up REAL GOOD!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

How come freefall acceleration did not start immediately upon this supposed simultaneous/synchronized/8 floor demolition? Chandler's graph shows a short period of non-freefall right before the actual freefall.

Delayed Action GravityTM

Introduced by T Szamboti. I think it is still in alpha - not yet released for beta trials by persons outside the Truth Movement.

They turned WTC 7 over to Billy Sol Hurok and Big Jim McBob so it could be blowed up REAL GOOD!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

How come freefall acceleration did not start immediately upon this supposed simultaneous/synchronized/8 floor demolition? Chandler's graph shows a short period of non-freefall right before the actual freefall.

Chandler's graph for WTC 7 shows a short flat line of zero velocity because he started the program before the building started coming down so he would not miss anything.

Once the building is moving in his measurement it is in free fall right from the start.

Chandler's graph for WTC 7 shows a short flat line of zero velocity because he started the program before the building started coming down so he would not miss anything.

Once the building is moving in his measurement it is in free fall right from the start.

No! That simply isn't true. His measurements don't agree with NIST's but they do show the free fall was not "right from the start." NIST's measurements show about a 7-foot drop over the first 1.75 seconds. That initial drop is explained by the NIST hypothesis -- i.e. this is when the 6th to 13th floors below were buckling, as the NIST model shows -- but this drop is unexplained by the magic silent explosive hypothesis. The subsequent free fall is explained by the columns breaking at splices, which were every two floors. The fallacious argument "free fall = CD" is an invalid inference because a broken column provides zero resistance, regardless of what broke it.

ETA: Here's a to-scale diagram of what a 7 foot drop over 8 stories would mean:

Lacking any direct evidence of a CD but desperately wanting it to be a CD, you and Chandler are trying to infer a CD, but then you need to distort the facts and contort the logic to reach that conclusion. That should be your second clue, really, that you're on the wrong track -- the first being the non-existence of magic silent explosives.

No! That simply isn't true.
ETA: Here's a to-scale diagram of what a 7 foot drop over 8 stories would mean:

Lacking any direct evidence of a CD but desperately wanting it to be a CD, you and Chandler are trying to infer a CD, but then you need to distort the facts and contort the logic to reach that conclusion. That should be your second clue, really, that you're on the wrong track -- the first being the non-existence of magic silent explosives.

No! That simply isn't true. His [Chandler's] measurements don't agree with NIST's but they do show the free fall was not "right from the start." NIST's measurements show about a 7-foot drop over the first 1.75 seconds. ...

If you want to support a claim about Chandler's data, you better work with Chandler's data.
Do you consider NIST's "7-foot drop over the first 1.75 seconds" to be accurate?
M_T, for all I despise him personally, listed several reasons why the NIST analysis is flawed. One of them being, IIRC, that they did not differentiat horizontal motion (kink) and vertical.

Anyway, I think I understand whaz Tony is saying.

Let's assume, to make for easier to read numbers, that Chandler is sampling at 0.1 s intervals.
Let's assume the point measured at the roof line in reality was at rest until t0 = 0
Let's assume it then started to drop at g immediately.

Then after 0.05 s, it would have dropped by 1/2 g t2 = 0.01225 m

Suppose Chandler sampled such that he missed t0 by half a sample interval: He would record t|d (d is drop distance) around t0 as
-0.05 s|0 m
+0.05 s|0.01225 m

He'd compute an average velocity of 0.1225 m/s and an average acceleration of 2.45 m/s2 (1/4 g).

Get my drift?
Tony, is that the sort of error you were thinking of when someone interprets Chandler's graph as showing 0<a<g initially?

If you want to support a claim about Chandler's data, you better work with Chandler's data.
Do you consider NIST's "7-foot drop over the first 1.75 seconds" to be accurate?
M_T, for all I despise him personally, listed several reasons why the NIST analysis is flawed. One of them being, IIRC, that they did not differentiat horizontal motion (kink) and vertical.

Anyway, I think I understand whaz Tony is saying.

Let's assume, to make for easier to read numbers, that Chandler is sampling at 0.1 s intervals.
Let's assume the point measured at the roof line in reality was at rest until t0 = 0
Let's assume it then started to drop at g immediately.

Then after 0.05 s, it would have dropped by 1/2 g t2 = 0.01225 m

Suppose Chandler sampled such that he missed t0 by half a sample interval: He would record t|d (d is drop distance) around t0 as
-0.05 s|0 m
+0.05 s|0.01225 m

He'd compute an average velocity of 0.1225 m/s and an average acceleration of 2.45 m/s2 (1/4 g).

Get my drift?
Tony, is that the sort of error you were thinking of when someone interprets Chandler's graph as showing 0<a<g initially?

Which is self correcting after that first interval, is it not? acceleration is derived by difference in velocity, which is derived by difference in distance traversed between intervals. So yes an average of all derivations of acceleration will be affected but if t=0 is in question, just drop the first interval.

If you want to support a claim about Chandler's data, you better work with Chandler's data.

Agreed. In response to Gamolon's question Tony made a simple pair of assertions about what Chandler measured. With the slight risk of wrong implication as to what "it" referred to.

Originally Posted by Oystein

Do you consider NIST's "7-foot drop over the first 1.75 seconds" to be accurate?
M_T, for all I despise him personally, listed several reasons why the NIST analysis is flawed. One of them being, IIRC, that they did not differentiat horizontal motion (kink) and vertical.

Which is self correcting after that first interval, is it not? acceleration is derived by difference in velocity, which is derived by difference in distance traversed between intervals. So yes an average of all derivations of acceleration will be affected but if t=0 is in question, just drop the first interval.

or am I missing something?

It is unclear what you are commenting on.

Tony made a simple statement - two assertions - in response to Gamolon.
1) Chandler's graph starts BEFORE the detected motion; AND
2) "Once the building is moving in his measurement it is in free fall right from the start."

The first IMO needed no comment. To the second I responded "True enough at the level of accuracy of D Chandler's methods."

”The subsequent free fall is explained by the columns breaking at splices, which were every two floors. The fallacious argument "free fall = CD" is an invalid inference because a broken column provides zero resistance, regardless of what broke it.”
…
“Lacking any direct evidence of a CD but desperately wanting it to be a CD, you and Chandler are trying to infer a CD, but then you need to distort the facts and contort the logic to reach that conclusion. That should be your second clue, really, that you're on the wrong track -- the first being the non-existence of magic silent explosives.”

Why do you ignore the magic required to validate your own belief?

A snapped column results in the immediate removal of gravitational resistance.

WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns.

Freefall as observed in the video record showed the NE corner dropping in sync with the SW and NW corners. 83 columns do not ’snap’ at the same time unless they all face an overwhelming lateral force at the same time. There is nothing desperate about arguing that CD was the cause. It is the only logical explanation.

What is truly desperate is the belief in magic required to accept that a combination of roaming office cubicle fires and the buckling of a single column lead to the immediate failure of the 82 other columns.

If you want to support a claim about Chandler's data, you better work with Chandler's data.
Do you consider NIST's "7-foot drop over the first 1.75 seconds" to be accurate?

Chandler's data appears to show about 1 m/s for over half a second before the start of free fall. The question is not so much whether the 7-foot drop in 1.75 seconds is accurate, but why was there any delay at all if the columns were taken out by explosives.

A snapped column results in the immediate removal of gravitational resistance.

WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns.

Freefall as observed in the video record showed the NE corner dropping in sync with the SW and NW corners. 83 columns do not ’snap’ at the same time unless they all face an overwhelming lateral force at the same time. There is nothing desperate about arguing that CD was the cause. It is the only logical explanation.

What is truly desperate is the belief in magic required to accept that a combination of roaming office cubicle fires and the buckling of a single column lead to the immediate failure of the 82 other columns.

If you take a look at the "columns" below the perimeter moment frame from the ground to floor 8... you will see that there is nothing like 58 columns supporting the moment frame. Of the 58 columns above floor 8 only 21 of them were DIRECTLY coupled to the foundation. Half of the north side columns were supported on the end of cantilevers... the east and west sides were supported on "braced frames" (sloping columns)

All of the support below floor 8 collapsed or folded inward leaving the moment frame from floor 8 with nothing to support it. LOOK at the Cantor plans before you make such statements which are incorrect and deceptive.

A snapped column results in the immediate removal of gravitational resistance.

WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns.

Freefall as observed in the video record showed the NE corner dropping in sync with the SW and NW corners. 83 columns do not ’snap’ at the same time unless they all face an overwhelming lateral force at the same time. There is nothing desperate about arguing that CD was the cause. It is the only logical explanation.

What is truly desperate is the belief in magic required to accept that a combination of roaming office cubicle fires and the buckling of a single column lead to the immediate failure of the 82 other columns.

Immediate?? What video were you watching? That just did not happen!

I note you also ignore, as is the common theme in truther circles, the kink in the north face and the draw down of the entire north face along that line BEFORE the corners of the building begin moving.
Can you envision the stresses on the structure that this vertical failure along the kink put on the rest of the structure?

Freefall as observed in the video record showed the NE corner dropping in sync with the SW and NW corners. 83 columns do not ’snap’ at the same time unless they all face an overwhelming lateral force at the same time.

Oh, well played, that man! Beautifully done - mention that three of the columns fell at the same time, imply that means that all 83 fell in perfect synchronisation, and neatly avoid mentioning (a) the clearly visible kink in the middle of the North face that made it painfully obvious that the perimeter columns failed in sequential lateral progression from the middle outwards, exactly as would be expected from a cascading sequence of overload failures, load redistributions to the next column across, and so on outwards, and (b) the fact that the core columns had equally obviously already collapsed several seconds before the façade began to fall. Cherry picking and lying by implication at its finest; propagandists the whole world over must be very proud of you.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Half of the north side columns were supported on the end of cantilevers... the east and west sides were supported on "braced frames" (sloping columns)

All of the support below floor 8 collapsed or folded inward leaving the moment frame from floor 8 with nothing to support it. LOOK at the Cantor plans before you make such statements which are incorrect and deceptive.

Another item commonly overlooked (looked the other way while whistling) by truthers.

Oh, well played, that man! Beautifully done - mention that three of the columns fell at the same time, imply that means that all 83 fell in perfect synchronisation, and neatly avoid mentioning (a) the clearly visible kink in the middle of the North face that made it painfully obvious that the perimeter columns failed in sequential lateral progression from the middle outwards, exactly as would be expected from a cascading sequence of overload failures, load redistributions to the next column across, and so on outwards, and (b) the fact that the core columns had equally obviously already collapsed several seconds before the façade began to fall. Cherry picking and lying by implication at its finest; propagandists the whole world over must be very proud of you.

Dave

Well to be sure, truthers ignore pretty much everything until the NW corner begins moving downwards.

A snapped column results in the immediate removal of gravitational resistance.

WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns.

Freefall as observed in the video record showed the NE corner dropping in sync with the SW and NW corners. 83 columns do not ’snap’ at the same time unless they all face an overwhelming lateral force at the same time. There is nothing desperate about arguing that CD was the cause. It is the only logical explanation.

83 columns, 8 storeys, and a modest estimate of 2 cutter charges per 'cut'. That's around 1300 separate charges in a very conservative* CD scenario. Do you really believe that happened? 1300 simultaneous detonations went unheard?

Originally Posted by Criteria

What is truly desperate is the belief in magic required to accept that a combination of roaming office cubicle fires and the buckling of a single column lead to the immediate failure of the 82 other columns.

Why would the columns all have to fail simultaneously? There's strong evidence (the early fall of the east mechanical penthouse, for example) that the core was collapsing progressively before so-called 'global collapse' was observed.

*eta: More realistically, you'd need to cut the columns top and bottom to prevent a single-cut column remaining in position, and would probably add a kicker charge to knock it out of the way once cut. Now we're looking at ~3,000 separate charges, many of them necessarily in plain view. And all this neglects the fact that "I" columns have the web cut in advance, as the cutter charges won't penetrate deep enough to take that out. Add to that that at a single location cutter charges may require a pair for each flange and we're up to the region of 6,000 charges.

Oh, well played, that man! Beautifully done - mention that three of the columns fell at the same time, imply that means that all 83 fell in perfect synchronisation, and neatly avoid mentioning (a) the clearly visible kink in the middle of the North face that made it painfully obvious that the perimeter columns failed in sequential lateral progression from the middle outwards, exactly as would be expected from a cascading sequence of overload failures, load redistributions to the next column across, and so on outwards, and (b) the fact that the core columns had equally obviously already collapsed several seconds before the façade began to fall. Cherry picking and lying by implication at its finest; propagandists the whole world over must be very proud of you.

Dave

It's the age old ignorant guess that the number of columns in a building is supposed to be sole absolute in the stability of the building; assuming load redistribution is necessarily even and consistent. This is one fatal weakness

#2 Freefall acceleration happens after initiation and cannot self diagnose the mechanism that started it.

Chandler's graph for WTC 7 shows a short flat line of zero velocity because he started the program before the building started coming down so he would not miss anything.

As an engineer I would think you would be more accurate in your wording then this. The building started coming down around 6 seconds before he started recording. Maybe you should say from the time you like to fixate on?

A snapped column results in the immediate removal of gravitational resistance.

WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns.

Freefall as observed in the video record showed the NE corner dropping in sync with the SW and NW corners. 83 columns do not ’snap’ at the same time unless they all face an overwhelming lateral force at the same time. There is nothing desperate about arguing that CD was the cause. It is the only logical explanation.

What is truly desperate is the belief in magic required to accept that a combination of roaming office cubicle fires and the buckling of a single column lead to the immediate failure of the 82 other columns.

Originally Posted by GlennB

83 columns, 8 storeys, and a modest estimate of 2 cutter charges per 'cut'. That's around 1300 separate charges in a very conservative* CD scenario. Do you really believe that happened? 1300 simultaneous detonations went unheard?

Why would the columns all have to fail simultaneously? There's strong evidence (the early fall of the east mechanical penthouse, for example) that the core was collapsing progressively before so-called 'global collapse' was observed.

*eta: More realistically, you'd need to cut the columns top and bottom to prevent a single-cut column remaining in position, and would probably add a kicker charge to knock it out of the way once cut. Now we're looking at ~3,000 separate charges, many of them necessarily in plain view. And all this neglects the fact that "I" columns have the web cut in advance, as the cutter charges won't penetrate deep enough to take that out. Add to that that at a single location cutter charges may require a pair for each flange and we're up to the region of 6,000 charges.

The whole concept is insane.

Regardless of what was happening out of sight, we could definitely see what was happening to the WTC7’s shell.

￼

￼

What is insane GlennB is the idea that random fire activity could accomplish such a fantastic feat of demolition engineering.

What credible mechanism outside of CD could cause the synchronous failure at freefall at the observed NE, NW and SW corners?

At best, any other failure mechanism would have inherent delays which would cause a major topple or a dramatic gradually distorted building failure.

We can see the roofline dropping at freefall for those three corners, so all the perimeter columns at, and between those points, must have been removed at the same time and for a height of eight storeys.

Regardless of what was happening out of sight, we could definitely see what was happening to the WTC7’s shell.

￼

Your second image was how far along in the collapse? Besides that, why would you not show a better image that shows definitive proof the core had already failed? Do you not want people to see the truth?

__________________"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Regardless of what was happening out of sight, we could definitely see what was happening to the WTC7’s shell.

What is insane GlennB is the idea that random fire activity could accomplish such a fantastic feat of demolition engineering.

What credible mechanism outside of CD could cause the synchronous failure at freefall at the observed NE, NW and SW corners?

At best, any other failure mechanism would have inherent delays which would cause a major topple or a dramatic gradually distorted building failure.

We can see the roofline dropping at freefall for those three corners, so all the perimeter columns at, and between those points, must have been removed at the same time and for a height of eight storeys.

There was a 'major topple', as I suspect you well know. Inertia, inevitably for such a mass, delayed its onset.

But I see you don't want to address the issue of the totally synchronised yet silent detonation of thousands of explosive charges. Nor the early fall of the E penthouse, nor the fact that internal collapse preceding "global collapse" has other strong evidence in its favour.

Horse ... water.

If you're still here - can you explain how a paint-thin layer of thermitic material might damage WTC structural steel?

What credible mechanism outside of CD could cause the synchronous failure at freefall at the observed NE, NW and SW corners?
.

In other words you continue to argue based on your lack of building construction and design knowledge and rationalize CD as the only workable cause because you havent made any attempt -whatever the reason- to understand just how a building functions from a structural standpoint. Thats basically what your argument boils down to

In other words you continue to argue based on your lack of building construction and design knowledge and rationalize CD as the only workable cause because you havent made any attempt -whatever the reason- to understand just how a building functions from a structural standpoint. Thats basically what your argument boils down to

Add to this they choose to start "questioning" the collapse half way through while ignoring what has already happened.

It's like I cut the legs off the table and they only look with wonder after I drop it. How could it fall so fast.....................

__________________"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

That picture of the kink in the face from Criteria is actually superb evidence of a sequential lateral cascade failure. I can only presume he's not intelligent enough to understand his own evidence.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?